Issue 9736: Derivation of Registration Interfaces (qos4ccm-ftf) Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS (Mr. Tom Ritter, ritter@fokus.fraunhofer.de tom@users.berlios.de) Nature: Revision Severity: Minor Summary: Derivation of Registration Interfaces Why isn't StubContainerInterceptorRegistration derived from ClientContainerInterceprotRegistration? Why isn't ServantContainerInterceptorRegistration derived from ServerContainerInterceprotRegistration? Resolution: closed no change Revised Text: Actions taken: May 18, 2006: received issue January 15, 2008: closed issue Discussion: A container vendor may decide to either provide basic or to provide only extended interceptors or to provide both in a container implementation with a specific product configuration. For allowing a vendor to be flexible with respect to this, the registration interfaces should be independent of each other. An inheritance relationship would introduce the concepts of basic interceptors also to extended interceptors. Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 18 May 2006 04:10:50 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Tom Ritter Company: Fraunhofer FOKUS mailFrom: ritter@fokus.fraunhofer.de Notification: Yes Specification: QoS4CCM Section: 8.7 FormalNumber: ptc/06-04-15 Version: 1.0 RevisionDate: April/2006 Page: 32 pp. Nature: Revision Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.3) Gecko/20060426 Firefox/1.5.0.3 Description Derivation of Registration Interfaces Why isn't StubContainerInterceptorRegistration derived from ClientContainerInterceprotRegistration? Why isn't ServantContainerInterceptorRegistration derived from ServerContainerInterceprotRegistration? Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:19:55 +0200 From: Tom Ritter User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) To: qos4ccm-ftf@omg.org Subject: Discussion on issue 9736 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Aug 2007 12:19:53.0628 (UTC) FILETIME=[6B4BCDC0:01C7DE6D] X-Fraunhofer-Email-Policy: accepted Hi FTF members, regarding the issue 9736 I would propose to close this issue and give the following explanation. A container vendor can decide to either provide basic or to provide only extended interceptors. A vendor could also provide both. For allowing a vendor to be flexible with respect to this, the registration interfaces should be independent of each other. An inheritance relationship would introduce the concepts of basic interceptors also to extended interceptors. Please let me know if you have any comment regarding this issue and the proposed solution. Cheers, Tom -- Tom Ritter Head of Working Area Model-Driven Engineering Fraunhofer FOKUS Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31 10589 Berlin, Germany +49 30 3463 - 7278 (fon), - 8000 (fax) mailto:ritter@fokus.fraunhofer.de